Burn Them Alive (Then Plant Trees To Make The Execution Carbon Neutral)
By Scott Kirwin Posted in Economy — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I'm an amateur scientist. The first book I ever picked up from a library when I was a kid was a children's astronomy book written by Isaac Asimov. In my humble opinion the development of the scientific method stands as one of Civilization's greatest achievements. It's our "lantern in the darkness" - the light of Reason that systematically and dispassionately banishes ignorance, leaving Reality and Truth in its place.
I'm also an amateur historian. Put the two together and you can't help but note that the history of science is punctuated by "unscientific" fads, prejudice and group-think.
This should not be confused with skepticism - which is a critical component of science. Science should be conservative. Theories and ideas backed by evidence should count for more than new theories supported by weak evidence. Theories should only be usurped when a new theory comes along that better explains the evidence and survives being rigorously tested.
Based on this fact, a theory's longevity means a lot. Evolution has been around for 150 years and survived countless challenges. We are fast approaching the century mark on Einstein's Theory of Relativity (using the successful test of the theory in 1919 as the date of the theory - not the paper's publishing in 1904) and it appears that Einstein's theory won't be going cast into the bin anytime soon.
Which brings me to Global Warming. Global Warming has been the dominant paradigm in climate science since the late 1980's. It's arguable whether Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is the dominant paradigm today, but for arguments sake I'll assume that it is. This theory is even younger, perhaps becoming the dominant paradigm over the last 10 years or so.
Longevity is one reason why I remain deeply suspicious of AGW. Cover stories like Newsweek's recent "Global Warming is a Hoax*" deepens that distrust. I tend to question any "scientific" article that mentions a politician, especially when that pol is the most liberal member of the Senate, Barbara Boxer (D-CA).
"NEWSWEEK's 'denial machine' is a peripheral and highly contrived story." Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum Institute? Nope - Robert Samuelson, writing in Newsweek a week later.
The Newsweek cover story is so biased that I hesitate to even label it propaganda. It's an inquisition for anyone who questions the current AGW paradigm.
Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "
To summarize: If you question the current paradigm that we are behind the rising temperatures, well then we are being duped by - or are part of - a global conspiracy run by the oil, coal and natural gas companies.
Notice how the term "contrarian scientists" is thrown in with "free-market think tanks" and "industry" to create a de facto "axis of evil" - as if questioning a paradigm made you somehow less a scientist (and free-market think tanks? Well we know what spawn of evil reside in the Cato Institute.)
This is not science. This is political propaganda of the type used by the Soviet Union to manipulate science for a political end, as it did by championing Lysenkoism in place of Natural Selection to better justify Lenin's ideals.
Liberal politicians and journalists have latched upon Global Warming to justify their long term goals: Transnationalism (Global Warming requires governments to work together worldwide to fight it) and socialism (regulation and control of markets and industries by governments in the name of 'fighting global warming'.)
Science will eventually reach a consensus on global warming - but it will take time. Science moves slowly, but it will find the truth eventually.
Given the non-scientific nature of this battle, I've decided that the term "heretic" best describes those of us who refuse to worship at the Pope Gore's altar. Being heretics means we will have to put up with (and fight) non-scientific witchhunts like Newsweek's recent cover story. The stake burnings will continue.
Meh... I'm not so sure. You're correct about Arrhenius and Tyndall, but anthropogenic global warming being the dominant paradigm?
(In the 1970's) The only thing most scientists agreed on was that they scarcely understood the climate system, and much more research was needed. Research activity did accelerate, including huge data-gathering schemes that mobilized international fleets of oceanographic ships and orbiting satellites. - American Institute of Physics
The same source notes, "International panels of scientists began to warn that the world should take active steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The scientists' claims about climate change first caught wide public attention in the summer of 1988."
some personal experience here. In 1976, I went to work for the Australian research organisation, CSIRO, in West Australia. Our role included advising the State government on scientific matters. The main agriculture there is wheat farming, and automation had made it economic to farm even if you only got a crop every second year. The issues and region relate to those treated in this recent NYT article.
There was pressure to expand into new land to the north and east, and the State government asked us if this would be viable in the long term. We looked at the state of climate modelling; the only theory recommended was greenhouse theory, and even in 1976 it had an unequivocal prediction for SW Australia. The band of westerly winds that comes north to bring rain in the winter (which is all they get) would come less often, and increased drought was expected. So we said, no, expansion is unwise.
Our advice was correct. It seemed to be spectacularly confirmed by a coincidental run of three very dry years, but in the longer term, the outer edges of the existing wheat belt have suffered from continual drought.
Tyndall, in the 1860's, worked out the basic theory of selective radiation absorption by trace gases in the atmosphere. Arrhenius, in 1896, made the connection between manmade CO2 and global warming. I have a 1957 copy of Encyclopedia Britannica, which in its entry on Air says:
AGW was certainly the "dominant paradigm" by the 1970's. In 1992, the US Senate ratified, and Pres Bush signed, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which initiated the Kyoto process. It takes a long time for a scientific theory to get to this stage.